P VANAVAMALAI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the land acquisition proceedings, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition on various grounds.

(2.) The petitioners own lands in Sooriyur village, Tiruchirapalli Taluk. The respondents have initiated proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to acquire the lands of the petitioners. It is stated that Bharathidhasan University has submitted proposals to the State Government that it requires 500 acres of land under first stage I. Initially the State Government issued orders to acquire the said 500 acres of land in Sooriyur village. However, the lands belonging to the petitioners were not included in the said order. In this regard, Section 4(1) Notification was published in the Government Gazette on 31-12-1986. The substance of the notification was also published in the local dailies circulated in the area. Pursuant to the notification, 2nd respondent on 30-1-1987 issued notices to the petitioners that the lands belonging to them are required for public purposes for the formation of Bharathidasan University and if the petitioners have any objection, they can submit the same on 13-4-1987. The petitioners raised various valid objections. The 2nd respondent forwarded the objection to the third respondent for their comments. The third respondent by reply dated 25-5-1987 offered their remarks. The second respondent on 30-5-1987 forwarding the above letter of the third respondent to the petitioners called them to attend further enquiry. Ultimately the second respondent has passed orders on 2-6-1987 and recommended to the Government for passing 6(6) Declaration. Accordingly, the Government have issued 6 Declaration dated 15-2-1988 and the same was published in the Government Gazette on 16-2-1988 as per the amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, the publication of 6 Declaration on 16-2-1988 had exceeded one year prohibition imposed under Proviso (ii) of Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Hence the entire acquisition proceedings become void ab initio and the same is liable to be quashed.

(3.) Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a counter affidavit disputing the various averments made by them. It is stated that the Government in their orders Ms. No. 541, Education (Science and Technology) Department, dated 29-3-1982 and Ms. No. 1349, Education (Science and Technology) Department, dated 26-6-1982 accorded administrative sanction for acquisition of 205.99.5 and 200.98.5 Hectares of lands respectively in two phases in Sooriyur village, Tiruchirapalli Taluk for the purpose of establishment of Bharathidasan University. The land acquisition proceedings have been completed in all respects and possession was handed over to the University to the extent of 231.10.0 Hectares. Since the extent of acquisition applied for was large, the entire extent sought for was split up into 39 Blocks for expediting acquisition proceedings. The petitioners' lands come under Block No. 39. Notification under Section 4(1) was published in the Government Gazette on 31-12-1986. The said notification was also published in two dailies,viz. Indian Express and Dinamalar, dated 11-1-1987 and the substance of the notification was published in the locality on 30-1-1987. Thereafter, notices for enquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act were duly published and served on the interested persons as per Rules. They raised objections to the acquisition. Their objections were duly communicated to the requisitioning body. Thereafter Draft Declaration Notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was sent to the Government on 30-7-1987 for approval. The Government approved the said notification. At that stage the writ petitioners filed a writ petition in W:P. No. 7160/87. But the same was dismissed on 31-8-1987. Against the said order of dismissal, the petitioners filed Writ Appeal No. 2244 of 1987 and this Court granted stay in C.M.P. No. 19664/87 till 5-1-88. The writ appeal was also dismissed by this Court on 21-3-1989. It is further stated that in the meantime 6 Declaration was published in the Government Gazette on 16-2-1988 and also published in two Tamil dailies dated 23-2-1988. The substance of the declaration notification was also published in the locality on 18-2-1988. The said declaration is being challenged in this present writ petition. The acquisition is for establishment of Bharathidasan University and it is for public purpose only and not otherwise. The contention that 6 Declaration is beyond one year is factually incorrect. Since the time taken by the petitioner by way of the writ petition and writ appeal have to be excluded for computation of period referred to in the first proviso to Section 6 ; hence declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in time. Since the respondents have followed all the provisions after due notice to the petitioners, absolutely there is no merit in the writ petition and prayed for dismissal of the same.